Western Civilization - Essay Example

Introduction Western civilization had great developments in the history. There have been many reforms in the political form in the western society beginning from the rule by monarchs. Machiavelli, Marx and Locke are three great theorists that the world had in a certain period of time. These three theorists have proved many evidences in support to their theories by the medium of their book. Machiavelli has supported the monarch as mentioned in his book “The Prince,” which consists of social and ethical principles and advices that proves the monarch as an effective rule in society. On the other hand John Locke in his book the Second Treaties proves that an individual should have his own identity and thoughts. Moreover Karl Marx in his book “Communist Manifesto” mentions his view against capitalism. According to Marx, Locke’s documentation resembles more like capitalism. This essay brings out some important evidences about the argument of Locke against the interest of monarchs as represented by Machiavelli and Marx’s argument against capitalism as represented by Locke. Discussion As per the documentation and evidences mentioned by Locke in his book the “Second Treaties” there should be self dependency and individual rights assured to every people in a society. Locke did not argue literally about the monarch rule as represented as an interest of Machiavelli. Locke represented his ideologies about various aspects of the society during his period. Locke’s documentation seems argumentative by readers because of some lines mentioned in Chapter 3 of his book which is the state of war in his book. It says that “The Prince, who is a ruler, must control his people even by any ruthless means. By this statement Locke did not actually argue about Machiavelli’s interest he just wanted people to think differently and he wanted the society to be less dependent on some one. He wanted people to be perfectly free and one person should not be subjected to another person’s authority without his or her permission. However, according to Machiavelli the world is full of people who are unworthy and can-not be trusted. If power is given in hand of common people they will end up making the society a worst place (Fukuyama 29). Hence people should be under the command of a leader who has a vision higher and greater than anyone else and a king should be able to take greater responsibilities. A ruler should not show kindness and mercy on each and every person as it can lead to social disturbance and can lead to developments of traitors. The human society should be ruled under a political system that people can fear so that the peace and prosperity can remain in the society and there can be less chances of civil disturbance. With regards to his book Machiavelli wanted to discuss that a prince should use all his efforts in order to rule people and have a power of the society. A prince who does not show his power to his people may suffer with great danger of being attacked. His theory defines that the longevity of a kingdom depends upon the power a ruler has on his people. His ideology states that the amount of cruelty a ruler shows in his kingdom the more chances he has to rule his kingdom successfully. Kindness is the enemy of a ruler as it can lead people to turn against a prince. On the other hand Locke recognized that humanity in the society can be emerged successfully only if a person is free and not dependent on any other person. His judgment should be done by himself. Only if a person permits someone to judge his decision and over rule him. Then someone else should interfere in his matters. Loki wanted to form a government which is chosen by people so that the society can decided their own fate. There should not be any room for any kind of single rule or ownership as per his ideologies. Loki was very transparent while giving his ideologies as it could help the society to become a better place to live in. Machiavellian set of guidelines resembles somewhat about divide and rule policy. Hence it was appropriate for Locke to argue against the representations of Machiavellian. Machiavellian did not recognize a person’s dignity and freedom. He just focused on a person’s weakness and potential (Marx 53). Hence he was trying to support a government that could rule a person against his will and conviction. According to John Locke, a ruler should agree and understand the terms and conditions of each and every individual in the society. He should have the power to convince people instead of forcing them to his will. People of a province can live happily with freedom only if there is understanding between a ruler and his fellow people. Hence Locke’s ideologies were well accepted by the people of the society. The society can live in prosperity with their ruler only if the people of society are not imposed or forced to do things that is not appropriate according to a person. A person can work and stay freely in a society if there is proper communication and healthy relation with a person and his ruler and everyone else. Due to this ideology Locke’s theory might feel argumentative against theory of Machiavelli. On the other hand is the communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx. Karl Marx is most famous among all because of his theory of communalism. Marx proposed this theory along with Engel and it is one of the most famous ideologies that the world could learn in those days when people were only ruled by Monarchs and capitalists. According to Locke the freedom and dignity of a man is the most important thing. His book always mentioned and argued for proper dignity and right of a free man. Locke did not mention about any kind of role of an individual that could lead to any kind of capitalism ideologies. Hence the argument of Marx against Locke’s theory might not be appropriate because he never mentioned any capitalistic term in his book the “Second Treaties”. The Communist Manifesto describes about the relation of an individual to the society. It gives some ideas about the division of group of people in the society. According to the Marx’s ideology the society had been divided into three distinct classes, the labor class or the poor, the middle class also known as the peasants and the rich class also known as bourgeois. According to Marx the division of society in terms of wealth is inappropriate. Development of a nation is only possible if there is proper distribution of wealth in the society. Moreover the invention of machinery in the world had brought many reforms and the poor class started becoming poorer (Schumpeter 12). There were limited right for poor class people in the society. Hence Marx mentioned that that at least there should be proper and equal rights to people of all classes. There should be no discrimination in the society regarding earning potentials because poor class works more than the bourgeois. The argument that Marx had against Locke’s ideology was not quite appropriate because Locke mentioned in his book about right of an individual. He mentioned that a person can own a property and can make it work according to his wish. This was a very basic right of an individual that he must get. Now the ownership mentioned about a property in Locke’s book hardly resembles about capitalism. Hence Marx’s argument against Locke’s ideology is not correct (Bidet 23). Marx might have the understanding that ownership of a capital for an individual is the reason for capitalist movement in the society but that’s not true because Locke merely mentioned public right, public freedom and public interest. According to Locke the income of a person is directly proportional to the interest and knowledge a person has in a specific field hence it does not prove anywhere that Locke supported the capitalistic movement. Hence it can be said that all the theorists mentioned above were from different periods in the society hence their thinking and their ideologies were different. They proposed their ideologies in different circumstances therefore there should not be any arguments against theories that we have today. The modern world as we see today is a result of many reforms and changes in the society. Hence all the theorists were somehow appropriate with their ideologies in their respective periods. Conclusion The discussion of the three books “the Prince” of Machiavelli, the “Second Treaties” of Locke and the “Communist Manifesto” of Marx have provide the society different ideas of different society. These books have offered the knowledge about different type of life style and reforms in society that has helped the modern society to build what it is today. Hence there should not be any kind of critics for references of any of the doctrine. These theorists were the most important and famous thinkers in their time in the society. They have showed the world a true picture of their respective time. They have highlighted the political set-up, the social life and the division during their period. Hence there should not be any argument on any of the ideologies because they were given in different time period when society and scenarios were different. Works Cited Bidet, Jacques. Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism. London: Routledge, 2008. Print. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the last man. Stamford: Cengage Learning. Marx, Karl. The German Ideology. Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2001. Print. Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Springer, 2012. Print. Read More